What do i think you're doing? Action identification and mind attribution.

Kozak, Megan; Marsh, Abigail A.; Wegner, Daniel M.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.543

Cited by 207 publications

(226 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

212

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It should be noted, nonetheless, that we do not contend that high-level construals would never be used to represent the behaviors of socially close others. Indeed, people may sometimes be motivated to represent the behaviors of close others in terms of underlying goals and intentions and thus use higher level identifications to categorize their actions (see, Kozak, Marsh, & Wegner, 2006;Maass, Salvi, Arcuri, & Semin, 1989). We propose, however, that to the extent that interpersonal similarity reduces the perceived social distance from a target, lower level construals would be activated and used to represent that target.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is unclear why participants would use more subordinate identifications and less superordinate ones as personal involvement increases. In fact, it seems more likely that personal involvement should make one motivated to view the target in terms of his or her intentions and goals, and thus represent the target's actions in a high-level manner (see, Kozak et al, 2006;Maass et al, 1989). Likewise, there seems to be no a-priori reason why personal involvement should lead one to assign more weight to low-level features in judgments of others' decisions and performance, as demonstrated in Experiments 3 and 4.…”

Section: Involvemettmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions

Liviatan

Trope

Liberman

2008

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

527

364

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building on the assumption that interpersonal similarity is a form of social distance, the current research examines the manner in which similarity influences the representation and judgment of others' actions. On the basis of a construal level approach, we hypothesized that greater levels of similarity would increase the relative weight of subordinate and secondary features of information in judgments of others' actions. The results of four experiments showed that compared to corresponding judgments of a dissimilar target, participants exposed to a similar target person identified that person's actions in relatively more subordinate means-related rather than superordinate ends-related terms (Experiment 1), perceived his or her actions to be determined more by feasibility and less by desirability concerns (Experiment 3), and gave more weight to secondary aspects in judgments of the target's decisions (Experiment 2) and performance (Experiment 4). Implications for the study of interpersonal similarity, as well as social distance in general, are discussed. Keywords interpersonal similarity; social distance; construal level theory; social judgment; mental representations Imagine a close friend giving a job talk. Now imagine a stranger giving the same job talk. What type of representation would you construct for this action? Would you represent it in terms of an abstract superordinate goal (for instance, communicating one's research ideas) or rather bring to mind the subordinate, concrete means by which to achieve the goal (such as presenting power point slides)? And would your representation include primary and central aspects related to this action (for instance, the research question) or more secondary information (such as the slides' background design)?

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Involvemettmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions

Liviatan

Trope

Liberman

2008

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

527

364

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, we sought to rule out likeability as a possible explanation for why harmful agents are denied agency. Harmful agents are generally disliked (see Kozak, Marsh, & Wegner, 2006;Waytz & Epley, 2012) and this might account for why they are attributed lower agency, rather than specifically because of their being harmful. In Study 2a…”

Section: Operationalization Of Agencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceiving the agency of harmful agents: A test of dehumanization versus moral typecasting accounts

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is clear that harmful agents are targets of severe condemnation, but it is much less clear how perceivers conceptualize the agency of harmful agents. The current studies tested two competing predictions made by moral typecasting theory and the dehumanization literature. Across six studies, harmful agents were perceived to possess less agency than neutral (non-offending) and benevolent agents, consistent with a dehumanization perspective but inconsistent with the assumptions of moral typecasting theory. This was observed for human targets (Studies 1-2b, and 4-5) and corporations (Study 3), and across various gradations of harmfulness (Studies 3-4).Importantly, denial of agency to harmful agents occurred even when controlling for perceptions of the agent's likeability (Studies 2a and 2b) and while using two different operationalizations of agency (Study 2a). Study 5 showed that harmful agents are denied agency primarily through an inferential process, and less through motivations to see the agent punished. Across all six studies, harmful agents were deemed less worthy of moral standing as a consequence of their harmful conduct and this reduction in moral standing was mediated through reductions in agency. Our findings clarify a current tension in the moral cognition literature, which have direct implications for the moral typecasting framework.

show abstract

“…A manipulation check was included for both dehumanisation and anthropomorphism. For the dehumanisation manipulation check, the mind a ribution scale (MAS) from Kozak et al [29] was used. In this questionnaire participants rate to what extent the robot is capable of experiencing each of ten mental capabilities (e.g.…”

Section: Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mindless Robots get Bullied

Keijsers

Bartneck

2018

Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans recognise and respond to robots as social agents, to such extent that they occasionally a empt to bully a robot. e current paper investigates whether aggressive behaviour directed towards robots is in uenced by the same social processes that guide human bullying behaviour. More speci cally, it measured the e ects of dehumanisation primes and anthropomorphic qualities of the robot on participants' verbal abuse of a virtual robotic agents. Contrary to previous ndings in human-human interaction, priming participants with power did not result in less mind a ribution. However, evidence for dehumanisation was still found, as the less mind participants a ributed to the robot, the more aggressive responses they gave. In the main study this e ect was moderated by the manipulations of power and robot anthropomorphism; the low anthropomorphic robot in the power prime condition endured signi cantly less abuse, and mind a ribution remained a signi cant predictor for verbal aggression in all conditions save the low anthropomorphic robot with no prime. It is concluded that dehumanisation occurs in human-robot interaction and that like in human-human interaction, it is linked to aggressive behaviour. Moreover, it is argued that this dehumanisation is di erent from anthropomorphism as well as human-human dehumanisation, since anthropomorphism itself did not predict aggressive behaviour and dehumanisation of robots was not in uenced by primes that have been established in human-human dehumanisation research.

show abstract

What do i think you're doing? Action identification and mind attribution.

Cited by 207 publications

References 35 publications

Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions

Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions

Perceiving the agency of harmful agents: A test of dehumanization versus moral typecasting accounts

Mindless Robots get Bullied

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About